Very recently, something happened in the Crawl world. All the mountain dwarves are gone. Part of the player base revolted, so here are some words to explain the inexplicable.
For quite a while it was realised that MD, HO and Mi are too close to each other than is good for well-differentiated variety. In other words, developers agreed that cutting a species of the three would be an improvement. This was not urgent; that’s why it isn’t announced on the 0.10 development plan or anywhere else. However, it is also not a big change, so when we got the details ready in a session or two, we commenced with the wipeout.
First, theme. Hill Orcs are sacrosanct by Beogh’s protection. Even if you don’t like the orc god, there is no way we would get rid of HO as a player species. Choosing between MD and Mi, the lot hit the former. The reasons are less forcing than with HO, but are reasons nonetheless: Mi has a monster equivalent whereas MD has not (the monster dwarves are deep dwarves, akin to deep elves being the monster elves). Mi has an ancient mythos behind it (Minos, Crete, the labyrinth) as well as a portal vault in the game. MD on the other hand is the archetypical Tolkien-style dwarf, which in my book is a severe demerit.
Second, aptitudes. Removing a species does not happen in empty space. It might have impact on nearby species, and it certainly did so here. A table of the old and new aptitudes for Mi, HO and old MD is at the end of this text. The summary is this: new Minotaurs approached MD in certain areas (e.g. Armour is 2, also Stabbing, Traps & Doors, Evocations). Hill Orcs got additional magical competence.
Third, to dispel a myth. We didn’t use winning rates, or number of games played in order to make a decision.
Fourth, history. Over the course of DCSS, the following species had to resign: HD, GE, El, Gn, OM (Hill Dwarf, Grey Elf, Elf, Gnome, Ogre Mage). Of these, OM merged with Og into a more interesting species; the others left for the same reason MD goes now: lack of differentiation. On the other hand, some species were added over the years: Vp, DD, Fe (Vampire, Deep Dwarf, Felid). 0.10 will probably feature Octopodes. None of these are defined by aptitudes alone (but note that new Ogre is an exception!), which makes for additional complexity but also diversity. Note that species tweaking goes beyond adding and removing: Draconians and Demonspawns were changed (and will probably see further changes), and with some luck and effort, 0.10 will see more interesting Demigods.
An empty entry means no change from the old version of the species. Arm Ddg Sth Stb Shd T&D Inv Evo HP MP Exp -------------------------------------------------------------- Mi old +1 +1 -2 0 +1 -1 -1 -3 +1 -2 140 Mi new +2 -1 +2 0 -1 130 MD +3 -1 -3 -2 +2 +1 0 +1 +1 -1 130 HO old +1 -2 -2 +2 +1 0 0 0 +1 -1 100 HO new +2 0 Fgt SBl LBl M&F Axs Pla Stv UC Thr Slg Bws Crb ---------------------------------------------------------- Mi old +2 +2 +2 +2 +2 +2 +2 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 Mi new +1 0 MD +2 +1 0 +2 +2 -1 -1 0 -1 -1 -2 +1 HO old +2 0 +1 +1 +2 +1 -1 +1 0 -1 -1 -1 HO new Spc Coj Hex Cha Sum Nec Trl Trm Fir Ice Air Ear Poi -------------------------------------------------------------- Mi old -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 Mi new -4 -4 -2 -2 HO old -3 0 0 -1 0 0 -2 -3 0 0 -2 0 -1 HO new -2 +1 -1 +3 Int, -1 Str MD -3 -1 -2 -2 -2 -3 -2 -1 +2 -2 -2 +2 -2
1. Comment by Torokasi
28/Oct/2011 at 23:32
As one of the voices that’s been arguing against the removal of MD in some circles, I figure I may as well throw my hat in the ring even though I don’t really feel this’ll be heard or change anything.
My arguments (and the arguments of friends that have mulled this over alongside me) would go as follows:
1) This removes a friendly option for newbies. Minotaur has inherited some but not all of the properties, but it is not intuitive as a choice; MD was. Like what it was based on or not, MD played pretty much how you would expect it to. Minotaur evokes far different images (an unarmed fighter w/ hooves+horns, for one; their unarmed is surprisingly unimpressive).
2) To rebalance an existing race would have been easy as well. The HO changes that’re being placed in helps differentiate them from Mi/MD – so now the only problem is between those two races. Giving Minotaurs Large gives them an obvious niche as the one Large race that doesn’t fail with high AC armors at base, giving them a unique niche (and they don’t need to worry about playing to stereotypes if the obvious race is still in play). Further refinement could be done to Mi to ensure that the two races played differently. HO is now distinct enough that I don’t consider it relevant, but they’ve been even before this probably the best medium/heavy armor mages in the game thanks to solid affinities for such.
3) We’re now lacking a more competent armor user, making this feel like a stealth armor nerf more than anything else (and heavy armor is still not as good as light armor on average in game – most races want light or mid armor to take advantage of spellcasting).
4) Dwarven equips were better on MDs, for what little it’s worth. No, dwarven equips don’t play into the game much at all – racial equips in general don’t – but they were nice small boosts for dwarves when they came up, and MDs benefit from the heavier armor and weapons than the mixed-style DDs did.
5) Your own comparison listing posted here shows the differences already present between the races. They had the same HP, Fighting, and Axes… and that’s it. It would not have been hard to amplify what the MD was good at and vary what the Mi was good at to get two physical races, both with differing preferences and styles of play.
Consider this resigned protest as to this style of development – Crawl’s got a lot of good and cool elements, but I feel cutting for the sake of cutting, as this was, benefits no one.
2. Comment by yeah
28/Oct/2011 at 23:42
I still think it’s a dumb idea.
3. Comment by minmay
28/Oct/2011 at 23:54
Octopodes are the single most played race in 0.10, mountain dwarves have about 1/5th the number of games. And this isn’t just because they’re new, felids had rather few plays in 0.8.
4. Comment by Marsh
29/Oct/2011 at 00:00
I understand the reasoning. And I’m not going to argue until I’ve tried 10.0 final.
But I enjoy Mi and that looks like way too much nerf of the Mi species.
5. Comment by Nicolae
29/Oct/2011 at 00:10
I was kind of surprised to see the change come so suddenly, and I wasn’t very happy with it initially. MD were a basic species, not much fuss, just put on armor and hit things with an axe, repeat until dead.
On the other hand, is playing as a new-Minotaur heavy-armor fighter actually going to be that different in practice than playing an MD heavy-armor fighter?
6. Comment by Roderic
29/Oct/2011 at 00:11
Thanks for the detailed dissertation.
Mi are one of my prioritary choices because I found them rather weird and only based on a unique individual in a unique myth, meanwhile other races have more presence in legends.
Anyway, we have deep dwarves which are still a good race to play with (if tweaked even better)
Maybe allowing humans to be an above-average race on armour and shields would help to make melee heavy-armored fighters very similar to what MD were
7. Comment by Roderic
29/Oct/2011 at 00:12
Er. I meant Mi aren’t one of my choices
8. Comment by Zack
29/Oct/2011 at 00:29
I’m with Torokasi. Cutting MD is nerfing armor. I started with MD and I tell everyone I get to play to start MDHu. Please don’t cut them! (Do whatever to the others.)
9. Comment by Inde
29/Oct/2011 at 01:52
Looking over the 9.0 races, there are 7 ‘generic’ races that are mainly differentiated by aptitude – Human, High Elf, Deep Elf, Sludge Elf, Mountain Dwarf, Halfling, Hill Orc.
5 races have mutations that don’t significantly effect gameplay (7 if you’d put Naga/Centaur in this group). 12 (or 10) races have alterations that significantly alter gameplay.
Cutting MD will bring that down to 6 generics, and add another gimmick to the pile. And the only justification you have is they were ‘too similar’ to other races? What about the 3 elf races? Why not remove High Elves? They’re basically just a middle-ground between Deep Elves and Humans that (bizarrely) levels even slower than DE’s.
Oh, but they can use bows a teensy bit better, guess that makes them special.
I don’t mean to be hostile, really. But I don’t like you getting rid of dwarves. Which this basically is doing – you’d still have Deep Dwarves, but they’re still a gimmick race that, frankly, I don’t want to play.
Mountain Dwarf is my go-to class for ‘armored badass’, when I want to just eschew spellcasting in favor of beating dudes in the face while waddling about in crystal plate. Sure I could go Minotaur but they can’t use helmets and I want to wear every sweet piece of armor I can. Wizard hats do not fit the ‘armored badass’ stereotype. Hill orcs are out because I don’t want to be a filthy orc, and they also go in my mental bucket of ‘the only reason to play this race is if you wish to worship Beogh’. Silly perhaps, but not all feelings are rational.
And I’d like to echo the earlier sentiment that removing MD is a nerf to dwarven equipment. Who else is going to use those sweet ass dwarven weapons/armor? Deep Dwarves? Don’t make me laugh. Why not adjust dwarven gear to make it a bit more desirable, or gives some other benefit beyond just damage/ac/spellcasting success? Add a dwarven deity that requires wearing only dwarven gear! Just don’t get rid of dwarves! (please?)
10. Comment by Devlan
29/Oct/2011 at 01:55
How about instead of cutting core races we use some creative thinking and add some differences? I’m with Torokasi in that this is some pretty lazy hand-waving to fix a really non-existent issue. But then again I’ve stopped playing crawl because of inane design decisions so what do I know.
11. Comment by wrshamilton
29/Oct/2011 at 02:39
I think cutting melee-focused races for being too similar before differentiating different melee playstyles is a mistake. Almost all of them are going to feel similar to one or extent or another because fighting is so much more limited than casting spells. Since there’s a stated goal of differentiating melee combat, once it’s implemented there will be a lot more room to differentiate races that focus on it.
12. Comment by dpeg
29/Oct/2011 at 03:19
Just to point out that there is also another kind of feedback:
https://crawl.develz.org/tavern/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2938
I think that new Mi will fit the former MD role just fine. They already did, in a sense, so will do even better in the future.
Note that an aptitude difference of 1 is not enough to constitute sufficient differentiation. (One could argue that we weren’t bold enough when mapping percentage aptitudes to the more discrete scale.)
13. Comment by The Newman
29/Oct/2011 at 03:21
Not a big fan of the proposed change. We lose the gimmick Staff of Earth build, with that Evo and Earth aptitude, and it was kind of nice to have an armor guy that could get casting once he got enough skill to reduce the penalties.
Now we’ve got minotaurs who are just sort of generically great with every weapon and generically awful with every spell, and Hill Orcs that roll with an OK armor skill and mediocre casting.
14. Comment by Inde
29/Oct/2011 at 03:32
So since Minotaurs are a great all-around race for melee characters that means there’s no need for other melee oriented races? The only thing saving Hill Orc by that definition is their Beogh status. Just let Mino’s worship beogh (you can say orcs worship minotaurs as gods, who cares) and get rid of them too. Who needs melee-biased races, generalists and gimmicks for all!
(Ogres and Trolls don’t count because they suck)
15. Comment by The Newman
29/Oct/2011 at 03:51
I feel I should probably suggest some options to differentiate these 3 without needing to make a cut: make MDs small, make MIs large, give MI +rage at level 12, have HO start with Beogh, push MDs axes to +4 while cutting the other weapon attributes, have MD able to identify the bonuses on a weapon more quickly, differentiate weapon types.
16. Comment by Inde
29/Oct/2011 at 04:04
I guess this places ‘no-magic’ characters firmly in the gimmick category then since they only need 1 race to cater to that play style
17. Comment by Zannick
29/Oct/2011 at 04:51
I agree, we have too many elves.
18. Comment by Tenaya
29/Oct/2011 at 07:34
I can not say that I am very surprised …
But, disappointed because MD had better aptitudes, equipment, and xp than the old and new, even, Mi. It was a fun race; sad to see them go.
+1 to Inde: to continue this development, just let Mi worship Beogh and axe HO also. Duh.
19. Comment by HarperSam
29/Oct/2011 at 10:34
As a new player of Stone Soup (started 2 days ago), but a long term roleplayer I am very surpised at this choice. Mountain Dwarfs are a stable of any RP type game, Iconic if you like. A race which any new player would reconize and understand what they are getting (the very reason I’m learning the game using this very race). If any race should go the Mi would be my choice, keeping the basic Role playing race of MD.
20. Comment by t0nedude
29/Oct/2011 at 12:33
The developers have clearly lost it….
21. Comment by Matteo
29/Oct/2011 at 14:14
Agree completely with @Devlan.
Please considerate thinking how to add some differences instead of cutting races.
I think that’s not the right way of going on, mountain dwarves are essential characters for any fantasy related game, art, thing in the world.
Thanks.
22. Comment by AndMyAxe
29/Oct/2011 at 14:15
Surprising change. The comments are right, it’s odd to remove an RPG staple that new players are familiar with. As said, one of the elves could be chopped as well. Instead you get bizarre species like Kenku, Felid and Octopus, with equally weird strategies. Many of the interesting species like Trolls and Ogres are penalized, so that they can barely be played, with pre-determined strategies. Alternate strategies for these are impossible due to the harsh skill penalties.
23. Comment by Gimli
29/Oct/2011 at 16:26
The unwritten rule of game updates: Do not remove things that players like and rely on. Make changes that give rather than take away.
If many players are enjoying playing the MD, one of the reasons may be that they are in fact enjoying the idea of playing such a dwarf character. Getting rid of the MD rids them of that source of enjoyment. Telling them to play a silly minotaur instead is a poor substitute. Appearances and conceptions matter a lot.
If the problem is too little differentiation between Mi and MD, the lazy choice should be to remove the least popular of the two. The good choice would be to introduce more differentiation. Removing the most popular race of the two is imho a very bad choice.
- Crawl player since 1998
24. Comment by minmay
29/Oct/2011 at 17:35
MD was actually a terrible race for newbies to play; it’s much harder than Ce, DD, Sp, Mf, Ha, SE, and Ko.
Also, there was no need to delete the comments.
25. Comment by Jack
29/Oct/2011 at 19:20
Made an account to write this.
This is a really bad idea. If anything remove *sludge elf*. The justifications for it’s removal seem odd and it degrades my trust in this game being well developed. I will probably stop playing this game, because of this and the recent skills change.
Please don’t remove Mountain Dwarf, people like playing Dwarves because they are Dwarves. Some people don’t care that much about the min maxing number game and like to actually have an imagination.
Whoever is pushing this decision needs to be removed from the dev team because it is highly likely that they do not understand how to make a good game. Or at least tell them “YOU ARE WRONG” until it get’s through their thick head.
26. Comment by dpeg
29/Oct/2011 at 19:35
Gimli: playing longer than me, welcome! (Jibes strangely with the entry’s title.) “Do not remove things that players like and rely on.” I disagree. Very often, things that players like and rely on are precisely the broken features begging for a nerf. Being completely open and free, we can afford to put balance above everything else (I assume there will be constraints as soon as money involved.)
Of course, removal of MD is not a balancing act, so the above reasoning does not apply — I just gave it because I think you overshot there.
I understand your sentiment to say: “If you want to get rid of a species, then remove the less popular one.” Minor nitpick: we didn’t just remove MD; in fact we merged MD and Mi. I wrote the blog entry to explain why the surviving species is called Mi and not MD. This kind of reasoning is peculiar and subjective (in particular, I don’t think that Linley had any problems with using traditional flavour). However, the fact remains that I abhor the mindless copying of Tolkien, D&D and the fantasy stereotypes and I am not alone in this. I invented Deep Dwarves on purpose: they are about the origin of the dwarf mythos, not the trope from Hollywood movies.
minmay: I didn’t remove any comments! For some reason, all comments now have to be manually approved of. I did that, including the very first one (which started with “Fuck you.”) Someone else must have removed that one, probably for profanity. (I don’t mind — some comments just speak for themselves and utterly destroy their own point.) I just checked, that’s the only comment which got removed.
27. Comment by Tenaya
29/Oct/2011 at 19:49
minmay: what basis do you use to claim that MD were much harder for newbies than CE, DD, Sp, Mf, Ha, SE, and Ko?
28. Comment by Tenaya
29/Oct/2011 at 19:57
I understand and appreciate the flavor/immersion aspect of the MD removal. A better game will create its own images, rather than make use of pop-movies. However, from a game-play perspective, it was fun to have more than 1 good option for an armor-melee character; so what that they were similar. They were different enough to both be fun.
29. Comment by Efron Licht
29/Oct/2011 at 20:23
I don’t think this is a good change. The development team is right about one thing: mountain dwarves, minotaurs, and hill orcs are too similar. But all three of them are fun, ‘classic’ crawl races. The best solution is to further differentiate them rather than give the axe to MDs.
The hill orc changes are excellent. Minotaurs can be improved in a number of ways – for example, improving all their weapon aptitudes (ranged and melee) to +3 would give them a distinct role as crawl’s resident weaponmasters, allowing them to be a versatile, weapon-switching counterpart to the Mountain Dwarf’s armour and shield.
30. Comment by Jack
29/Oct/2011 at 21:18
If you were really against copying tropes you would create entirely new races and new names. It seems more like you are being a character archetype hipster and/or letting the the “doctrine” tail wag the “fun game” dog.
You may not want to copy Tolkein tropes but many people do enjoy playing with archetypical Tolkein-esque races. Many people who play crawl, and who have made this clear.
Even if you did have a good reason for removing MD, you would be foolish not to compromise, given the amount and intensity of negative feedback at this change.
If this goes through, DCSS will have jumped the shark begin it’s decline; I am quite certain of this. Even if it does, that this was even thought of makes me uneasy with the developer mindset.
31. Comment by Therpod
29/Oct/2011 at 21:29
Among the members of a collaborative dev team, to have the one member who is most publicly vocal about disliking the nordic-fantasy inspired mythos, disliking Okawaru, and disliking the heavy-armour melee specialist playstyle try to play the voice of reason is counterproductive. Bias can always find its reasons.
32. Comment by Gimli
29/Oct/2011 at 22:14
@dpeg, thank you for your comment. Let me first say that i deeply respect the work that you and the other developers are doing for the game. I can also not recall a single major change during the stone soup project that I disagree with. The game is heaps better and more fun today than it’s ever been.
You mention money. I know that the only compensation you get from the work you do is the intrinsic enjoyment of exercising creativity. Being able to impose your creative vision on the game is a large part of that.
I personally (believe it or not), am not particularly fond of any of the melee style races and will not be particularly sad to see the MD gone. I do however see that there is a significant amount of resistance towards this change, and I feel your blog entry mostly misses to address the primary cause for this apparent dissatisfaction. The cause is not technical, but quite clearly emotional. No amount of numbers and figures will help.
Emotional reactions tend to be both strong and important. I urge you to try to understand the emotional basis for this dissonance, and try to figure out a way to retune the emotions of the disgruntled fans.
Farewell — till we meet again
33. Comment by Cyrus
29/Oct/2011 at 23:09
A master at arms is less recognizable as a minotaur of the Cretan myth than Tolkein’s dwarves are of the nordic legend. The salient points of the Cretan myth are cannibalism and bestiality, and if following the Cretan myth were a motivating factor here, the Crawl race that would have been conflated with the minotaur is the troll.
34. Comment by AndMyAxe
29/Oct/2011 at 23:19
If the point is to improve the variety of strategies, even at the cost of less appealing mythos, then this is not a good move. A lot of the best roleplaying systems are unplayed, because their mythos is so bizarre it alienates new people. And the mythos should do the reverse, it should attract people to a new world.
Making Hill Orc a spell-casting fighter adds yet another spell-casting fighters, but one with armor. Right now it’s as if every playable strategy is a spell-casting fighter combination. Changing Hill Orc to something with very good Throwing and Crossbows would add versatility and been consistent with the mythos. Just adding a permanent rage curse to Minotaur might do the same, as would adding artificer-like abilities to Mountain Dwarf. These would add versatility, but in a way consistent with the mythos.
As for balancing, you only need to look at the winners from contests to see that some species and combinations are favored, others very hard to play. Mini-nerfing the strong combinations and boosting weak ones it the basic way to balance a game. If you do this in a way that adds versatility you will eventually have a great game.
35. Comment by Mark
30/Oct/2011 at 00:51
I totally support the removal of MD, and I’m a new player. I can’t believe all the commenters turning to the “but I like playing stereotypical unoriginal Tolkien rip-offs.” What sad, sad people.
36. Comment by neudialect
30/Oct/2011 at 01:49
On one hand I couldn’t care less about Tolkien in Crawl, on the other I still think this is terrible choice and that removing the only race for which much of the dwarf-branded equipment would provide bonus is quite disheartening. Also they had the distinction of being the only melee heavy race with full armor slots while also being ideally fit for FE/EE stave builds. As such I am very sad to see them axed in Trunk.
37. Comment by German Joey
30/Oct/2011 at 02:50
I’m a long-time player, and I certainly don’t mind the removal of dwarves any more than all the other removed races… I think all the backlash of this is colored by dwarf fanatics from bay12 games!
38. Comment by dalmedya
30/Oct/2011 at 04:55
This is retarded. 3 Elf types is fine, but 2 Dwarves is too many?
And a goddamn octopus what the hell really?
What’s next, playable Rats at the cost of Humans because they’re too generic?
39. Comment by Akhier
30/Oct/2011 at 05:48
I will admit being a little biased because of the above mentioned Bay12 factor but the MD was the beginners race. While I now stay mostly to Ko and Dr, the MD was where I started. Now this might not seem like much as you have other races that can be “beginner” level but the important thing about MD is its what people know. I decided to play MD first not because of others telling me but because there was something verging on a meme about it. There is even a flow chart for it. Yes the race is generic but there is a certain safety in generic that new players need when they start out so the can become old players.
Final disclaimer to this is that I don’t really care if MD stays or goes as I don’t actually play them. Also to those of you reading this who are in charge of the changes and such, here is a tip, when you plan to remove a race it is NEVER a small thing no matter how it might seem so. This is especially true if its a core race like the MD is and even though some of the backlash may be because of people like me from Bay12 what does that matter? Does being from Bay12 make a player worth less then other players or something? They are still a valid segment of the player base.
Also here is the flow chart: http://crawl.chaosforge.org/images/d/d2/Crawl-flowchart.jpg
40. Comment by kyprion
30/Oct/2011 at 06:19
I’m wondering why the devteam of DCSS still left HE ’cause it also seemed to correspond with that standards given.
41. Comment by Escobar
30/Oct/2011 at 07:01
Horrible, horrible change that adds absolutely nothing to the game and takes away probably the most popular race over the game’s lifespan. The bizarre rationale: “well-differentiated variety”. Nothing says variety and differentiation like offering LESS choices to the player.
Sure, all 3 races played similarly IF you chose a build like Fi and used the biggest axe, armor, and shield you could find. However, axing MD for that reason is like axing High Elves and Kenku because HECj and KeCj builds are too similar to a Deep Elf Conjurer (never mind the 20+ other builds that play differently). MD HAD a niche – they were the defensively oriented melee fighter AND also one of the few heavy-armour casting options. Plus there was the already pointed out evocations path, and caster builds like MDEE and MDFE that posed an interesting challenge. I don’t see how those small aptitude tweaks to the surviving races come close to filling in what was lost.
42. Comment by raithe
30/Oct/2011 at 10:27
That’s it. I’m done. Every release you’ve removed an RP staple and replace it with some gimmicky off the wall thing. Why don’t you just drop the current tile-set and switch everything over to Dragon Ball Z graphics and be done with it. I’m so sick of “gotta be different just to be different”. I’m guessing the devs won’t be satisfied till every single thing Linley put in the game is gone and replaced with their own stuff, because that seems to be what they’re going for.
43. Comment by David Gardner
30/Oct/2011 at 13:41
Keep making the best game you can. I realize most of the comments will naturally come from people who disagree. I think you all are doing a great job making and evolving my favorite game.
44. Comment by Jack
30/Oct/2011 at 16:58
Here is a link to the reddit thread regarding this change, which gives further player feedback.
45. Comment by Jack
30/Oct/2011 at 16:58
http://www.reddit.com/r/roguelikes/comments/lsonh/dcss_devs_give_reasons_for_getting_rid_of_mds_in/?sort=confidence
46. Comment by Darren Grey
30/Oct/2011 at 17:57
Why is Tolkien mythos seen as inferior to Greek mythos? If anything I’d say the dwarf archetype is more flexible than the minotaur archetype, as is already seen from the deep dwarf race in the game. Minotaurs are fairly uninspiring compared to the potential of dwarves, especially when considering personal culture (irrelevant to Crawl gameplay really, but important for the player’s psyche, and as has been noted it impacts on equipment types somewhat). I understand the reason for merging the races, but I can’t fathom why Minotaurs were chosen over Dwarves beyond what seems to be a personal bias. Not necessarily a bad thing in its own right, but it seems there’s some considerable disparity with the biases of the players.
Also, the points about the multiple elven types are particularly relevant, especially when you consider that they too are directly ripped from Tolkien / D&D lore. Moreso than dwarves really.
47. Comment by dpeg
30/Oct/2011 at 18:04
For some, “dwarf” evokes the image of axe, shield, beard, ale. I tend to think of “garden dwarf” and “snow white”. Note how “minotaur” has no ambiguities like this.
48. Comment by Darren Grey
30/Oct/2011 at 18:33
True, but that’s because there’s so little to minotaurs. They are a dumb race that patrol labyrinths, with no speech or culture or creations. As an adventuring race they leave much to be desired. As a role-playing race they feel particularly shallow (for those that like an element of role-play to their computer RPGs).
Consider also the many many many ambiguities over images of elves, orcs, trolls, ogres, etc. To target dwarves in this way seems inconsistent with the rest of the game, unless this is a specific philosophy you’re intending to roll out across all races. If the latter then great – I’m all for more original IP personally, but preferably choose stuff more interesting than minotaurs.
49. Comment by Afbee
30/Oct/2011 at 18:51
I agree with some of the other voices here that you should modify the MD if you REALLY think they are not that different from the other races. There should be at least ONE race that has a very strong aptitude or maybe even outstanding in armor and shield use. You might even do something like make a dwarf only god to make things interesting. In any case, your argument does not convince me that MD should be removed.
50. Comment by Cyrus
30/Oct/2011 at 19:30
Minotaur isn’t ambiguous, but it’s a poor fit: horns, half-beast, barbarism, cannibalism, poor at navigating indoors spaces. Nothing in the legend suggests a master of arms and armour.
51. Comment by bc
30/Oct/2011 at 19:37
The “tropes must be avoided” argument behind getting rid of MDs would be much more defensible if DCSS were the sort of game that provides a rich story and significant content that fleshes out whatever is intended to replace the MD.
But DCSS does no such thing, of course – it provides no real plot on its own account at all and depends utterly on the player filling in the gaps (if they are so inclined) by using the popular, well known tropes that most of the races and roles are based on.
Getting rid of MDs thus hugely impoverishes the game for many players, especially when the replacement (the Minotaur) has a pretty crappy trope to replace it.
52. Comment by Kenneth
30/Oct/2011 at 19:51
Seems a little pointless; you don’t need to make the game harder than it is.
53. Comment by TaipeiTeacher
31/Oct/2011 at 06:02
” I invented Deep Dwarves on purpose”
No offense, but there’s the golden apple right there. I invented a race and no one likes it because it’s not as good as the *generic* *TOLKEIN* race that was already there. So now if you want to be a dwarf, you have to be MY kind of dwarf.
That kind of reasoning reeks of ‘sperg.
54. Comment by sirvaulterscoff
31/Oct/2011 at 13:28
@TaipeiTeacher i totaly disagree. DD are cool and they occupy their own niche. I stay calm about MD removal and looking forward for any changes devs make. Yeah, i miss certain things and features – but i like to see how crawl changes over time. BTW i guess that’s not farwell for MD considering food reform and it’s almost immediate revert.
55. Comment by Robsoie
31/Oct/2011 at 15:48
Can’t understand the removal of a race that was fun to play for lot of people.
Hopefully one day it will come back with tweakings instead of plain deletion.
56. Comment by Pigvomit
31/Oct/2011 at 19:13
Any change that gets my little piggies a buff to spellcasting is cool with me.
Bringing Hill Orc closer to magic is consistent with the game.
57. Comment by jackalKnight
31/Oct/2011 at 21:54
If anything, they should have removed Minotaur AND the horrible Labyrinth levels instead. Those are filled with fake difficulty, and Minotaurs have no personality other than as monsters for heroes to kill.
58. Comment by killotron
31/Oct/2011 at 23:56
When i play any type of RPG, i always start with a melee character. Playing DC, I looked at the list of species and thought, “OK, there’s a bunch of monsters, caster elves, dirty orcs, and – there it is – Mountain Dwarves.”
New players pick dwarves because they are dwarves, not because they have +3 axes or -2 spellcaster or whatever. They want a burly little guy that can use all the best armor and weapons. Your quest for complexity and interesting playstyles is admirable, but it doesn’t necessitate the removal of classic or simple playstyles.
Like it or not, players expect burly dwarven tank to be in every fantasy game, and it seems lacking when it isn’t.
59. Comment by enrich
1/Nov/2011 at 00:06
When I started playing crawl the MD really appealed to me, and I’m not particular fond of playing dwarves in general because I do consider them to be an overused, generic race. However i liked playing a melee class with +3 armor, all available armor slots, and their own brand. Please listen to the community on this one and consider how else to address this race variety issue.
60. Comment by Xaintrix
1/Nov/2011 at 00:20
Really disappointed with the change. I loved my MD characters, and it’s not because they were particularly broken. MDs just had the pros and cons I really liked in a race. Mi, new or old, do not.
61. Comment by Dondy
1/Nov/2011 at 00:39
Why would you remove game content? While I totally don’t enjoy any melee chars, wouldn’t it sound way more reasonable to differentiate the three through aptitudes and rework melee combat in general (as in reaching polearms as a start and continuing from there, think brogue).
just my two cents O.o
62. Comment by Dakk
1/Nov/2011 at 00:55
Also really disappointed with the change. I’m with everyone else here saying that if crawl needed anything to improve the race rooster, it wasn’t MD removal.
63. Comment by TheBraker
1/Nov/2011 at 06:51
I just got my first ascension…
I love them, please dont erase them…
http://www.reddit.com/r/roguelikes/comments/lw2o5/dcss_my_first_ascension_after_190_defeats/
64. Comment by Tyto Alba
1/Nov/2011 at 11:25
Very strange change. I play Dungeon crawl from Linley’s version and i thing that any change you have made so far is for good and improves the game. I haven’t played many times MD Character but i believe that it is an unnecessary change for a typical RPG character like dwarf.
(the Hobbit movie is on the way and many new players will be disappointed too ) :)
65. Comment by Horst JENS
1/Nov/2011 at 17:04
thanks for the clarification, i was wondering where the Moutain Dwarves were going. Still hope for a return in the future, with unique skills/aptitudes (Axe of Digging?)
66. Comment by axaxaxas
1/Nov/2011 at 17:29
This is sort of a confusing decision. I can understand the devs’ reasoning, but I’m not convinced.
The arguments from theme seem the weakest to me. We’ve still got Orcs, for god’s sake — a race that Tolkien invented more or less from whole cloth. He even made up the name. Dwarves, at least, can trace their history to Germanic mythology — like trolls, elves, and kobolds. (And, of course, orcs, high elves, deep elves and kobolds are also age-old D&D staples, every bit as cliche at this point as the mountain dwarf.)
But leaving all of that aside, it seems very odd to cut the only heavy armor race that can actually wear a full suit of armor. I can understand the desire to cut and merge races for the sake of economy, particularly when you have more than one race occupying a similar niche, but having a legion of hybrids, compromises and gimmicks instead of a pared-down suite of essential archetypes works against this end.
The Crawl design philosophy seems to be that every choice in the game should be interesting, and no choice should be trivial. I approve of this, and it’s the reason this game is better than Nethack, Angband, ADOM, Larn, and all the others. But I think in this case, you guys are overlooking the fact that sometimes choices can be nontrivial for uninteresting reasons. Crawl is now probably the only roguelike in which the primary melee race can’t wear helmets. This has *some* sort of effect on a player’s decision-making process, I suppose. It’s surprising, at least. But little wrinkles and irregularities like this amount to so little in the grand scheme of the game that they are essentially a deformity or blemish. It is marginally nontrivial in that it demands a little bit of the player’s attention, but uninteresting in that — well, really, who gives a fuck about whether or not their MiBe can wear a helmet?
The fact that nobody (ought to) give a fuck doesn’t make it okay. It makes it sort of weird, distracting, and irritating. It’s ultimately a bad decision.
And, thirdly: At this point, the discussion has gotten so heated and contentious that the devteam is running the risk of losing a lot of goodwill over something very small. The community is the soul of any open-source project. Users are not just your players, but also your playtesters, your advertisers, your community managers, occasional patch contributors and are all potential developers themselves. The success of the game hinges on your player base having a sense of personal involvement in the project. Somebody mentioned money earlier — I would suggest that, in a major open source project, user satisfaction is *more* important than in a commercial endeavor. It’s not like when the game is released everybody moves on to something new. DCSS is an ongoing, ever-evolving project and its health hinges on user satisfaction.
Come on, y’all, just cave in and let people have their dwarves. We’ll all be grateful that you listened to us.
67. Comment by axaxaxas
1/Nov/2011 at 18:03
(okay, i realize that mountain dwarves are not literally the only race that is good at heavy armor and can wear every article. but they’re the most straightforward and widely-used. simplicity is not always a bad thing)
68. Comment by Eifeltrampel
1/Nov/2011 at 20:09
A very sad goodbye to a faithful friend. MD I will miss you!
69. Comment by Anonymous
1/Nov/2011 at 22:00
I can’t help but note that I don’t see a single reply here which supports this change — only, at best, grudging acceptance of it. Personally, I never really played Mountain Dwarves, but I don’t think either Deep Dwarves or Minotaurs capture the same spirit. If differentiation is the point, why keep the bland, utterly vanilla Humans? And really, are humans that plain-jane? None are taller than others? They all have exactly the same skill sets?
Deep Dwarves might have damage resistance, but in my experience, they’re surprisingly fragile things due to their lack of natural healing, exactly the opposite of how dwarves have traditionally been portrayed. Likewise, Minotaurs having armor adeptitude doesn’t really feel in-character for creatures who are typically depicted as too bestial to even care about weaponry, much less be regular visitors to the armory.
My vote: Differentiate the dwarves further. Give them a sliding scale Pride mutation which makes them better in situations with high tension and worse in situations with lower tension, so they’ll get beaten bloody by chip damage and forget to care. Do SOMETHING that makes them interesting before giving them the axe.
70. Comment by UglyThing
1/Nov/2011 at 22:22
Not a big dwarf fan, but there are some very legit concerns being raised in these comments… And you seem to only be responding to the simple concerns. It really wouldn’t be too hard to tweak dwarves and make them unique. Maybe give them mining picks and some limited ability to dig after a certain level. I liked the idea of tweaking aptitudes so that Minotaur is the master of arms species able to switch weapon types mid game, while making dwarves axe only. There are definitely some fun builds that are MD only that will be lost with this change.
As far as the lore/rp issues, the other posters are right. You’re being fantasy hipsters. Dwarves are too mainstream? Lol. I love the strange species you’ve come up with, and you guys have good creative vision… But the “ambiguity” of dwarves is a strength. It let’s the player use their imagination. If I wanted to play a game where all the lore was spoon fed to me by the devs, I’d play world of Warcraft.
I hope you guys are actually considering what your players have to say. There’s a big difference between caving in to angry fanboys crying about a nerf, and considering legit concerns raised by the crawl community.
71. Comment by Dan
2/Nov/2011 at 06:23
Well, the thread in the forums got locked closed so I’m posting here. Apparently it was filled with flaming and personal insults (aka legit concerns and criticisms over a negative change) so it had to be closed. Oh wait, there were flames and insults, but most of them were from the devs.
If literally everyone that plays this game is crying out against this change (besides a select sycophantic few), that’s because it sucks. Devs, your hours of free labor are much appreciated, and nearly everything you do improves the game. However, you are not a super wise cabal of game designers impervious to mistakes and flaws. Occasionally, you introduce a change or removal that makes the game worse. (Memories of how bad Armour was in 0.6 immediately spring to mind) You are human, right? No one is perfect.
I guess when it all comes down to it, it’s your game, you make it, do what you want. But until this change their was at least an illusion that you listened to the community and were willing to work with them. It’s probably one of the main reasons this game is as popular as it is. You have proven that is not the case, what with the dismissive comments of us as Tolkien fanboys or what have you. You are elitists, and clearly view your player base as drooling retards who simply can’t appreciate the wonder and splendor of the myths of ancient Greece over Tolkien crap. That must certainly be why the players are upset! (For the record I couldn’t care less about Tolkien, or Greek mythology, and I certainly don’t play this game for either)
If you want to make this game for yourself and ignore the community that has built around it, go ahead. Make your wonderous roguelike filled with Satyrs and magical Giraffe creatures that can’t wear armor, but can wear 8 amulets at a time!
72. Comment by Roderic
2/Nov/2011 at 13:07
Do you all think that criticizing people that works hours for nothing is the sure way to change their mind ? Isn’t it the fastest path to the contrary ?
Sorry but if I were a dev, these rants only would make me more firm in my decision, simply so as not to be influenced when getting bad critics (aside from personal attacks and flaming). Call it stubborness, but I wouldn’t want my work to be kidnapped by the opinion of dwarf-fanboys or whoever else.
Propose solutions or get a life.
73. Comment by jackalKnight
2/Nov/2011 at 13:49
They were the ones who chose to do the personal attacks when they started with the “Silmarillion at the cradle” crap. And anyone who doesn’t know the mindset of their fanbase gets what they deserve when they make a poorly received changed. Its pretty clear that the devs intend for SS to diverge widely from a traditional fantasy vision when they start putting in lolcats and walking octopuses for “originality”. Well, there’s a very good reason such unpersonable concepts don’t appear in traditional fantasy.
74. Comment by a
2/Nov/2011 at 14:34
This is my first post ever on a DCSS board.
I’ve played Stone Soup for years. Without question, it’s my favorite (and most played) game of all time – and imo, one of the best games ever created, bar none.
I recently saw a post about “comfort games,” and that’s exactly what this is. When problems in life get too big or overwhelming, Dungeon Crawl provides a totally absorbing escape for a little while. Or a long while, if needed.
The game’s that good.
And I think most of the people posting on this thread know that, or else they wouldn’t be here creating a furor over (as I see it) a minor change in the game.
Frankly, I think that a lot of people know how great DCSS is. Companies like Blizzard know how great it is, as they openly admit to using roguelikes as inspiration for their games. And what roguelike is better than Dungeon Crawl? DCSS vs Diablo? Does the issue even warrant discussion?
If the Crawl community breaks up, it would be a great benefit to Blizzard and big game companies everywhere, wouldn’t it? Then we could all go out and buy their games like Diablo III to get our roguelike fix.
If the execs at Blizzard knew of this spat, they’d be thrilled no end.
Devs and players are all part of the same team here. You have all got to come together or everyone loses, (aside from the monster megagame companies who would win a great victory)
75. Comment by minmay
2/Nov/2011 at 18:15
I have a proposal that addresses all the complaints about this change while retaining its purpose. Rename High Elf to Mountain Dwarf, but keep the abbreviation (HE) the same. Results:
- the players who insist on playing something called Mountain Dwarf are happy
- the total number of generic trope-based species remains the same
- we still have one less species that is just a narrower version of another species
- (most important) we don’t lose any combinations that make words
76. Comment by UglyThing
2/Nov/2011 at 18:49
Also, if MD is getting the axe for being a tolkien archetype, then you should get rid of vampires too so people don’t think you’re ripping off twilight.
77. Comment by jackalKnight
2/Nov/2011 at 21:49
Get rid of Felids too…damn Erin Hunter knockoffs
78. Comment by Dan
2/Nov/2011 at 23:54
Roderic, I know you’ve been in the thread, and I know you have seen many people post proposals to make Minotaur and MD different.
And, hey, there you go calling people dwarf fanboys again when that’s not what they are. They are people who think its a bad change that now the main heavy armour melee race can’t even equip helmets. They are also upset that important decisions are being based entirely over flavor and theme, as opposed to gameplay. They are ALSO upset that, from the countless proposals that have been listed, none have been considered and almost all have been brushed off. (No one plays this game for the story or setting. Also, current Minotaurs don’t even fit the flavor of the myth they are based on. Hell, they don’t have any flavor at all, really.)
The “Stone Soup” in the game’s title is supposed to represent that this is a community driven project. When the community that loves this game is ignored and belittled even after the massive backlash over this change, I would prefer some of the devs wouldn’t work on this game honestly. Their attitude goes against the spirit of the game in my opinion. Primarily, the ones who must impose their vision of the “story and setting” of Crawl at the cost of fun gameplay. When you spend more time worrying about if a race is too Tolkieny (who cares), if the name of the Crusader background is flavorful (who cares), and whether or not katanas fit in the Crawl mythos (who. cares.), instead of things like “Would this decision make the game more fun and balanced?” I would prefer if you went elsewhere.
79. Comment by Dan
3/Nov/2011 at 00:14
Also, a lot of people who are offering rebuttals are saying that we shouldn’t criticize the ones who make our game and that it takes hours to code need to realize that, we are not criticizing those developers. I’m pretty sure most people’s problem is with dpeg (even if they don’t realize it), who does next to no coding (even stated as such in the wiki) and is the main “idea” guy.
Problem is, he’s a sperg and has proven time and time again he is willing to let his creative vision get in the way of good design decisions. I have no problem telling him he sucks, especially after how he has treated the community in the thread. He doesn’t even contribute that much to the development process, he mostly implements vaults created by other people and probably spends the rest of his time dreaming up his magical turtle race that can’t wear armor, but can strap up to 10 shields on their back! Wow, what differentiated and unique gameplay! This is a personal attack, and a flame, I don’t care.
80. Comment by jackalKnight
3/Nov/2011 at 00:25
How come katanas aren’t “Crawly” when kenku are anyway? They are both Japanese copncepts!
I agree that most of Crawl’s problems are GAMEPLAY related rather than programming related. In terms of nuts and bolts programming, Crawl is about as impeccable and professional as a non-commercial roguelike can be. The only thing that comes close is DoomRL IMO. However, Crawl’s gameplay has reached the point where its designed into an extremely steep difficulty at the cost of both accessibility to a less hardcore audience and designed to kill you likely early on to make you get REALLY frustrated. MDFi was the most accessible melee class and a great way to bypass this frustration. With the safety valve of MDFi gone, we’ve lost the best way to learn the Crawl universe.
The way the community was treated in both this thread and the other one antagonized me so much that merely putting MD back won’t be enough to make me happy. I’ll only make peace once dpeg is gone.
81. Comment by Tapicell
3/Nov/2011 at 01:18
MD and MI I always felt were well-distinguished by MI’s dodge and lack of helmets, making them far more suitable for berserk/gladiatoring rather than armor fighting.
There is a reason why MDFI and MIBE are the natural niches.
In addition, this shows that the developers would rather have crawl be an art piece of technical perfection than an actual, community driven game. (and by “this” I mean this is yet another example.)
*sigh* One step forward with new exp and better uniques and dungeons, two steps back by being anal retentive pricks and removing our beloved dorfs.
82. Comment by elliptic
3/Nov/2011 at 01:46
I’d like to attempt to clear up a few misconceptions that a lot of people seem to have about the design process that resulted in removing MD.
1) dpeg is just one of several devs (including myself) who were behind the removal. No devs spoke against it. He does not deserve all the personal attacks that he has been receiving about the matter.
2) The main motivation behind the removal was purely a matter of gameplay, not flavor. We decided that MD/Mi/HO were insufficiently well differentiated from each other to support three distinct races. Choosing which one of those three races to remove was the only place where flavor considerations came into the picture.
3) Also, this was never about balance. MD was a very strong race… but so was Mi, and new Mi is stronger than old Mi was. HO also has gotten significant buffs in 0.10. MD wasn’t removed because we thought it was “too good” or anything like that… it was removed because it was too similar to Mi and HO and we decided that the flavor was preferable for the other two races.
4) We did consider ways of differentiating the three races from each other better instead of removing one — a lot of people seem to think that this was a simple solution that never occurred to us. Of course it did… but we made the assessment that we wouldn’t be able to create sufficient differentiation without making changes that would be sufficiently radical that it would make more sense to create a race from scratch rather than trying to modify one of the existing ones. We are open to ideas for new and interesting heavy-armour-and-melee-favoring races, and we’d love to get a new one in Crawl at some point (even a second dwarf, perhaps).
5) The fact that we removed MD doesn’t mean that we aren’t also considering removing or renaming or changing other races (for a variety of reasons). These things are constantly under discussion. Removing MD is a completely separate decision from removing Ha or reflavoring HE or renaming Ke (to mention a few possibilities that have been tossed around).
83. Comment by AndMyAxe
3/Nov/2011 at 05:23
Elliptic, dpeg is not being personally attacked, its the reverse. New players are making comments out of their love for the game. He ridicules them and replies with sarcasm like “I like to think of Snow white and garden dwarves” and “I was read Greek epics when I was in cradle”. How is this community-driven development? This is one guy who hasn’t done any programming posing as the main developer and galvanizing newcomers.
I understand there’s little motivation for making the game better if there’s bitter arguing about what direction to take. But it’s developers like dpeg that are provoking the discontent on purpose.
If this goes through, there’s two races that you can play as with armor, HO and MI. Otherwise you use spells for protecting your ass, or die horribly. HP, shields or evasion are not reliable protection in the end. 2 fighters, 200 variations of spellcasters. That’s your diversity.
84. Comment by Dan
3/Nov/2011 at 05:56
We get that Minotaurs were chosen over MD due to flavor. The point is, that’s not a good reason. MD were a better choice for a pure melee race being that they aren’t locked out of any equipment. Kind of weird that the new go to hack n slash tank can’t even wear helmets.
In the long run, is this a big deal? No. It’s kind of a minor thing to get up in arms about. It’s still a less arbitrary thing to get upset over than the reason Minotaur was chosen over MD. A less effective race was chosen because apparently you guys …umm…think Tolkien is boring, and you guys were read stories about greek myths as a child? The decision was made purely out of emotion, and not logic.
Factor in the other things (Such as Mountain Dwarf being an iconic, newbie-friendly race and players’ personal attachment to the species) and the removal was clearly a mistake.
And as for trying to make the races more interesting? Slap Hooves on Minotaur (1,2, or 3…which ever is determined to be more balanced), and give them a flavorful ability somehow related to berserking (I posted one in the Minotaur thread in the tavern). Give them outstanding fighting and weapon aptitudes, and only mediocre defensive ones. Maybe Saprovore 1 (to better reflect their bestial nature), and one level of the monster sensing ability (they track and hunt prey through a labyrinth). They are still a straight forward melee race, but with a bigger focus on offense than defense. Lower Mountain Dwarves weapon aptitudes to compensate. Keep the Hill Orc changes, they are good and making them armoured casters is cool.
Seriously, try that out. Just try it. It will work. You can have two or three straight forward melee races that play differently. Just because they don’t all have some weird gimmick doesn’t mean they aren’t different.
85. Comment by Dan
3/Nov/2011 at 06:06
To clarify, I get that those three races were similar, and if one had to go it definitely wasn’t HO because of Beogh. However, Mi was chosen over MD due to flavor seemingly without considering that MD is more effective (and fun to play) as a straight forward melee tank.
86. Comment by Dan
3/Nov/2011 at 06:43
Also, another thing, I think a main reason these three races played so similarly is a symptom of a bigger problem: melee has next to no depth, utility, or versatility compared to magic. If every weapon type had a special ability added to it (like with polearms in trunk) and each of these three races specialized in different weapon types then they would further be different. The fact that MD was cut before this change was fully implemented (if it will be implemented), shows a lack of foresight in my opinion.
87. Comment by elliptic
3/Nov/2011 at 06:49
Here’s a separate comment to address some gameplay-related topics that have come up in the discussion.
1) Minotaurs not being able to wear helmets is relatively insignificant. The difference between wearing a helmet and wearing a cap or hat is 1 AC (2 AC if you have very high Armour skill). For a heavy armour char, this is probably the difference between 30 AC and 31 or 32 AC… hardly noticeable. Minotaurs get free extra damage from horns in exchange for this (and auxes like horns were recently buffed in trunk for non-UC-based chars).
Of course, you might love the flavor of wearing a helmet… that’s fine, there are still plenty of races who can wear one!
2) Far more races than just MD/Mi/HO can happily wear heavy armour. Deep dwarves, ghouls, centaurs, and demonspawn are some popular and strong choices for this, just picking from the races that have all armour slots available. These other races have features that make them quite dissimilar from MD/Mi/HO, of course (and they are less likely to choose to use heavy armour), but it isn’t like the heavy armour playstyle is limited to two races now.
3) Non-heavy armour non-casters do exist. I’ve noticed a lot of comments about how “all the other characters are casters”… but kobolds, halflings, and spriggans all make great berserkers – these are some of the best combos in Crawl.
4) Deep dwarves exist. The no-regeneration aspect of them may make you not like them or be hesitant to try one – that’s fine, they certainly aren’t for everyone – but they make extremely buff heavy armour melee chars, and they have many of the features that seem to be liked about MD. They are dwarves, they get bonuses from dwarven armour, they have the best damage prevention in the game, they like to use axes, and so on. If you haven’t seriously tried them, do consider giving them a chance. (But don’t neglect to worship Makhleb or Elyvilon or Trog for healing!)
88. Comment by Dan
3/Nov/2011 at 07:19
I understand that the helmet thing, in the grand scheme of things, is insignificant. However, there is a decent likely hood that during the game you will find a sweet randart helmet that you can’t wear. It’s a minor thing, but the only straight forward simple melee race that is pretty much designed to slap on some armor, a shield, and a weapon can’t wear them.
The other races you listed can definitely do this playstyle as well, and are all fun to play. However, they have their own problems. For one thing, a lot of these races are balanced around having to deal with a set of drawbacks in exchange for their benefits. Centaurs with their fast metabolism, Deep Dwarves with their lack of natural healing, Ghouls with their rotting HP, Demonspawn with their loss of a slot and “randomness”, and so on. You didn’t list Nagas (another race that can melee and use armour well), but they also have to slow movement to deal with. KoBe, SpBe, and HaBe are all great fun
all three skew towards dodging, and are locked out of equipment choices due to their small size. (Spriggans also have very few slots to deal with.)
Sometimes though, the extra complexity these races provide isn’t welcome. Mountain Dwarves were the only race that excelled at melee, could wear any kind of equipment (except bardings of course), and were simple. There are other races that in the game that have two of these things, but not all three.
89. Comment by Dan
3/Nov/2011 at 07:24
I should really proof read my posts better before I make them, heh.
90. Comment by Dan
3/Nov/2011 at 08:03
Also, on further review, some of the races listed aren’t even that good with armor. Sure, they can pull it off, but do it to the extent MD can? No way. I tried out a Centaur fighter and forgot that they have the deformed body mutation, plus a -3 aptitude for it.
Ghouls and demonspawn can both do it, but are fragile in the early game and it’s way harder to get a fighter off the ground with them than it is a MD or Minotaur.
DD is the only one I would say can tank at an equal level, but they lack versatility and are locked into either choosing three gods or hybridizing into Necromancy.
You say Minotaur have Horns 2 to compensate for lack of a slot…why not push them further in that direction? Hooves boosts their damage, lowers slots (and potential resistance bonuses) further, and makes them more unique from Mountain Dwarves.
91. Comment by Saegor
3/Nov/2011 at 09:27
This is a risky and good choice. MD were just dwarves and crawl dont tolerate approximate things. Hourra for the corage of the developpers.
Maybe i can suggest you think to remove an elf and the human too. Less is more after all.
Congratulations for that ######### (200/200) Fire/Air/Conjuration OverCrazyGame ! (Perfect)
92. Comment by Arthandas
3/Nov/2011 at 10:28
Yeah, let’s add cats and octopuses and remove the dwarf. I have an idea: make bats and rats a playable races and change the name to Dungeon Crawl: Pokemon Soup.
93. Comment by Darren Grey
3/Nov/2011 at 14:34
Dan: It seems silly to insult dpeg for spending more time on design than coding. Have you seen what happens when a game is made entirely by coders? It’s called “Nethack”… I don’t agree with all of dpeg’s ideas (including this one), but I appreciate that he does put thought and effort into them, and that’s a major part of what makes DCSS the game it is today.
94. Comment by jackalKnight
3/Nov/2011 at 18:59
They need to replace Spriggans with Killer Rabbits. Get all that yucky Northern European mythology out there and make a Watership Down roguelike, that’s the wave of the future.
95. Comment by Bulghrim
4/Nov/2011 at 03:27
Please don’t remove the dwarves! I just completed my first ascension in 0.10 as a MDFi of Okawaru and would love to use them again in the future releases. Sure they’re not the most unique race but I love them none the less. Glory to the dwarves!
96. Comment by suidh
4/Nov/2011 at 05:22
@Arthandas, POKEMON SUCKS ASS BALLS.
I’m ok with the removal of Mountain dwarf, the most overplayed specie ever for no reason, because when you wear your heavy armour and sheild and axe and then go fight a snake, Your equipement is getting in the way, and then you die from poison. if any species were to die because of their equipment, then they just suck. @inde, you’re not cool/badass, k? Finally to teh second commentor; stfu u haven othing btter to say
97. Comment by Bostvik
4/Nov/2011 at 21:35
Take out the wizard background. Cliche harry potter knock off. So boring.
98. Comment by Rosetint
4/Nov/2011 at 22:38
I have to say I agree with the devs on cutting mountain dwarves, in their current state. There really isn’t enough differentiation in the armored melee chars to justify have 3 races. For those with an emotional attachment to dwarves, I feel for you. I play Naga’s almost entirely because I think they conjure a cool mental image. However, there are a million games out there that let you play the plate mail and hammer beardy little man. I really treasure the fact that dungeon crawl goes out of its way to give me races I haven’t played before, like the felids and octopodes.
While I am sure this has been said before, I’ll reiterate if here because it seems like a good solution. This is a good opportunity to find a news direction to take dwarves. I’d say to the devs pull dwarves for now but open the floor to suggestions and mods that make dwarves unique and less plain tolkienian. For the people who loved the mountain dwarves, let it inspire you to find a great new direction to take dwarves. Form a group, make a mod, find a sympathetic dev who wants to work on a new dwarf. For example, if deep dwarves are very magical, perhaps you could make mountain dwarves mundane (anti-magical). Or find a way to Artificers more interesting and make dwarves excel at that.
99. Comment by Darren Grey
5/Nov/2011 at 01:09
There’s some interesting talk down the Tavern about Forge Dwarves as a new race. The ideas are much more interesting than the old armour+shield dwarf (which is a fairly boring stereotype).
100. Comment by strangerc
5/Nov/2011 at 19:45
Such a personal preference (“boring stereotype”) should never be used as a reason for a content deletion as long as there’s still people enjoying it, whether one is on the developler side or merely a player.
I don’t see anything logical and persuasive argument given by the devs on this matter.
Its nothing but a personal preference of tolkin-hater.
if you want your own themed fantasy so badly, which i would not complain at all, just screw every single known-species from the game and replace them with original ones.
In this way, no one would complain about any race addition or deletion, problem solved.
101. Comment by chillbain
6/Nov/2011 at 08:20
Sacrificing an entire race option for the sake of homogenization and disregarding the “was it fun?” factor is a poor choice. Dwarves are a fairly standard fantasy trope, to be sure, but not much different than having elves, dragons, and orcs in the game. Would we remove those as well because they’re prominent figures in other fantasy settings?
The game play reasons for getting rid of MD also feel weak. There are many races in the game that have similar aptitudes and class preferences. Why choose to cut this race now? Seems like putting simplification before fun is not a good idea.
102. Comment by lunatic
6/Nov/2011 at 12:49
Just a general note of support, I think that the willingness of the devs to take unpopular decisions in the past is part of what makes Stone Soup what it is. The reasons for removing MD or Mi seem quite valid, and I doubt there will be many people caring which one it is by the time 0.11 comes out.
Also, I support the notion something should be done about high elves. SE, DE are fine (well, maybe SE could be a bit more sludgey), but HE are just the ones you choose when you don’t actually know what you want to do.
103. Comment by minmay
6/Nov/2011 at 18:21
“There are many races in the game that have similar aptitudes and class preferences.”
Name a few.
104. Comment by AndMyAxe
6/Nov/2011 at 23:48
Someone mentioned the Pokemonification of the game. Elements from recognized fantasy themes like LOTR get removed and these get replaced by things like Felids and Octopuses out of nowhere. Lolcat and flying spaghetti monster???
Just stick to generally recognized fantasy themes, like LOTR, Greek myths(Centaur, Minotaur) and modern horror (Mummy, Vampire, Ghoul).
105. Comment by Humble
7/Nov/2011 at 01:44
I guess if you look at the aptitudes then the three races are similar, but they have a very different flavor to them.
I guess the outcry is from the people who have an emotional attachment to a specific race, rather than seeing them as a collection of numbers and attributes to be maximized.
106. Comment by Danei
7/Nov/2011 at 04:12
I don’t like the change very much. I would have favored MD and/or Mi aptitude changes for differentiation over a removal of either of them, and I would have favored the removal of Mi over MD.
Personally, I prefer to play races without gimmicks/in-built mutations. I play mostly humans and high elves. I never played MD much, so I’m not particularly passionate about this issue, but I am slightly disappointed that they’ve been removed.
“Because it’s common in fantasy” isn’t a good reason to have something in the game, but it also isn’t a good reason not to have something in the game.
107. Comment by Erich
7/Nov/2011 at 16:51
I’ll admit that Tolkein is pretty overexposed these days. And believe me, nobody is more annoyed by dwarves in general than me–I play a dragonborn fighter in 4e!
But seriously, the dwarven fighter is one of the pillars of fantasy now. The ‘pokemon’ comment above is spot on. Avoiding the Tolkein stuff or the ‘obvious’ stuff is the same as avoiding what people are interested in.
Designing to some stereotypes is AWESOME because it lets people dive right in and try the game and have a decent intuition about how they should play. Then they can get hooked and get informed and starting trying more innovative stuff…if they want.
Also, the whole lack of differentiation…well I’m not buying it. The evocation, crossbow, HA, and earth combo was distinctive.
I *loved* having heavy armor a decent option again, and to have a mainstay armor user go away is sad. The only upside I see is that maybe humans get a little more appealing now since they get full slots, unlike minotaurs. I kind of like that effect, but overall I’m definitely against this change.
108. Comment by frankhovis
7/Nov/2011 at 20:56
An observation: there are now more hybrids in the game than ever before, the -3 or worse Spellcasting club is left with only two members: Minotaur and Troll. The solution to the problem of the one-dimensional melee races seems to be: remove them or turn them into hybrids.
109. Comment by Eifeltrampel
7/Nov/2011 at 22:48
After reading all the comments I think that I’m not alone as a magic hater ;-)
So maybe after removing the MD it’s time for some melee improvments/tweaks.
Or maybe an improved unique version of the MD will show up again :-)
110. Comment by Regnix
7/Nov/2011 at 23:27
I will miss the +3 Armour most, building a tank will be that bit harder. Are there any plans for a defensive melee race in the future?
Until then, maybe all that dwarf equipment could be generated as “human” gear – give them the racial bonus for it…
111. Comment by Arn
8/Nov/2011 at 17:07
Just further proof that the developers have no interest in attracting new players. They are driving what *was* a standout game in a niche genre further and further into the “You don’t want to play this unless you are already intimately familiar with it” stereotype that plagues so many roguelikes. With the past nerfs to heavy armour and Okawaru, it’s not like MDs were even particularly good anymore. They were just easy to play, making them a good race for new players or someone looking for a break from playing a race where they have to mull over their options all the time. Just hit it with an axe.
112. Comment by evktalo
9/Nov/2011 at 22:15
Stone Soup has added: tiles into it’s main development line, tutorials, hint mode, WebTiles.. yeah sure, no interest (or effort!) to attract new players. :)
–Eino
113. Comment by Turg Shieldbanger
10/Nov/2011 at 06:10
Sob, there goes my fav race. Ok, back to older DCSS versions for now.
So now that its settled, lets all focus into getting MDs (or Hill Dwarfs, heck i be happy to have ANY dwarf along with the DD) back to the game by giving constructive suggestions on how they could be implemented .
I´ll go first:
MD (or any new dwarf race)
Reintroduce them as they were with the req of only good & neutral gods, Shields raised from +2 to +3, and a +10% gold amount drop bonus (MD only skill: gold find)
HO Revert to old but with +2 Inv
Mi Revert to new but with Axes +4, shield –1
114. Comment by Walter Fergusson
10/Nov/2011 at 08:56
I could never get my head around the minotaur. The in game description and aptitudes never meshed with the mythos in my mind.
I always pictured that the minotaur would excel in gladiator type combat (nets, spears) and not be good at other types of weapons that require space to swing them.
My minotaur would have excellent unarmed combat skill for the horns.
Both player and monster minotaurs would be able to charge enemies by moving one square and then butting the now adjacent enemy. This ability could be e(v)oked like a weapon of reaching. Accuracy and damage would be equivalent to stabbing. (Actually just use the stabbing code but use the unarmed skill.) Give the minotaur a bit of stealth and detect terrain/detect monster then I can play a high risk ambush style that is not currently available in Crawl.
-Walter
115. Comment by Turg Shieldbanger
10/Nov/2011 at 12:08
I´ll sign on to that Walter.
I also wondered why Minos can use pretty much all weapons at +2, just SB/UC +1. Something more in the line of
this:
MINOTAUR
Size Large
+4 to thowing when using Nets and +4 on Horn unarmed/stab attacks
Skills: Arm +1, Ddg +1, Sth 0, Stb 0, T&D 0, Inv –1, Evo –1, HP +1, MP –2, EXP 140, Fgt +2, SB1 0, LB1 0, M&F +2, Axs +4, Pla +2, Stv 0, UC +1, Thr +1, Slg 0, Bws 0, Crb 0, Spc –3, Coj –3, Hex –4, Cha –4, Sum –3, Nec –3, Trl –3, Trm –2, Fir –3, Ice –3, Air –3, Ear –2, Poi –3
//Now add Class Specific bonuses to each god, and i´ll cry of happiness.
116. Comment by Turg Shieldbanger
10/Nov/2011 at 16:08
Forgot Shield -1 (Mino). Dunno where the idea that Minos shud use a shield comes from.
117. Comment by jackalKnight
10/Nov/2011 at 17:32
Minos really should have Trample, I always imagined them of being capable of it. They do it in Age of Mythology…
118. Comment by Christopher
10/Nov/2011 at 18:11
Do not like this change. Should have used your imaginations, other sources or peoples’ suggestions to diversify Mountain Dwarves in some fashion, not removed them (or diversify the other two).
119. Comment by minmay
10/Nov/2011 at 22:17
I’d think that if anything, MD removal made the game easier for new players to pick up; with one less species on the selection screen, they have a better chance of choosing DD.
It also helps to stop people from using badly outdated guides, since they’ll try to start an MD, realize they were removed, then hopefully realize their 0.5 wiki guide written by someone who has never made it to Lair is not that useful after all.
If the idea is to have a species with as few choices involved as possible in order to maximize the chance of
120. Comment by minmay
10/Nov/2011 at 22:19
Sorry, hit submit by accident.
If the idea is to have a species with as few choices involved as possible in order to minimize the chance of screwing up, felids are better at accomplishing that than mountain dwarves ever were.
121. Comment by Bim
11/Nov/2011 at 03:08
“Very often, things that players like and rely on are precisely the broken features begging for a nerf.”
I…what..ahh..errrm…ah?
I abandoned the boards and giving my feedback as soon as I realised that most of the changes were just from devs that had been playing crawl for so long that they wanted to change it up.
As pretty much everyone has said on the most commented blog post in the time of crawl – people enjoy playing them ALOT. However, this is obviously a crutch, and people would enjoy the game alot more if they were forced to do what they don’t enjoy.
However, I do think that there could have been more mixing up of the HArmour classes, but not like this.
122. Comment by Deathcraft
11/Nov/2011 at 03:20
When I first played Linley’s DC the variety of available classes and races just dazzled me. That was one of the main reasons to play the game. And I was a kid (“easier for new players” argument is not good enogh i suppose). All the possibilities! I mean, sometimes it is not about the balance, but about the roleplay. It s roleplayin game alright is it not? I know that very often there are no dwarves in the gaming world. But here they were introduced. Why remove them? Once again, for me the balance is not an argument.
It just fills disappointing. I mean, anyway thank you guys for such a great job on Stone Soup! But I guess I have no choice but to stick to older versions for now.
123. Comment by Shasd
11/Nov/2011 at 09:30
I think I’ll just keep playing .9 There’s no legitimate reason to get rid of MD :/
124. Comment by minmay
11/Nov/2011 at 18:56
I know I’m repeating myself here, but MD’s balance was fine. They were not removed because they were badly balanced, they were removed because they were overly similar to other species.
Roleplaying is never mentioned in the design philosophy. For this reason, I doubt DCSS is intended to be a roleplaying game.
125. Comment by dpeg
11/Nov/2011 at 22:27
Maybe time for another observation: it is perfectly fine to feel nostalgic about your first win, or the first impressions you got when Crawl was new to you. I am not immune to this, I fondly recall the harsh difficulty of 4b26 and my first wins were HDFi and GEAE, if memory serves right.
…However! A player who is starting right now will feel exactly the same mystique: a screen full of species names, most of them unfamiliar, some outright strange. Gods with names nobody ever heard of. And so on.
And one more: For every potential player lost to “no dwarves” (discriminating against deep dwarves, as it happens), there might be one enticed by the species that are actually there. We won’t know, and obviously here we will mostly (but not exclusively, despite the rants!) hear from those who mourn.
You know that we will not (read: cannot) care about the “I’ll not play 0.10″ statements but if
you want to go the constructive path, follow fellow player file200, who wrote a patch for a new species, dubbed Forge Dwarf. https://crawl.develz.org/wiki/doku.php?id=dcss:brainstorm:species:forge_dwarf
126. Comment by Erich
11/Nov/2011 at 23:03
For someone looking to check out dcss, it’s awfully nice to have some obvious cliches so they don’t need to research tables of proficiencies to figure out how to play. I can accept that the minotaur can function as that role for someone who wants a heavy armor fighter. But that is not at all obvious since the only minotaur in mythology was pretty feral. I understand that the deep dwarf is good at the job too. But again that’s not something obvious. The stereotypical dwarf is a entrypoint, a gateway character, that can help grow/sustain the player base. I’m leaving aside the fact that obviously a lot of active players enjoy playing MD because you don’t seem to care (but…that IS pretty weird)
As for the players lost to “no dwarves” you make a false comparison. You already had dwarves AND minotaurs. It seems like you are only going to be picking up the players whose line is “I refuse to try a game with Mountain Dwarves in it” Have you been hearing much of that? The closest I’ve seen to such a weird mindset seems to be coming from the dev side :)
Seriously, I love this game a lot and will remain deeply grateful for it even without Mountain Dwarves. I’ll keep trying the latest versions to see what cool things develop. But that doesn’t mean this whole episode doesn’t seem like a tragic case of a few people who can’t stand the idea of Tolkein fans having fun.
127. Comment by megane
12/Nov/2011 at 00:58
Silly. As silly as just up and removing gnomes, without any discussion, was. People liked Gnomes, and it would have been easy to differentiate them as well. They were cannibalized for the pet project of the DD. A race which makes most of the game boring because it’s so painfully easy/simple.
Sad that these decisions are still being made like this. What happened to “stone soup”, are the original developers still around?
128. Comment by minmay
12/Nov/2011 at 01:34
The very first suggested combo in hints mode is MiBe. Also, the combo I most frequently see new, unspoiled players pick is HuFi, not MD.
One more thing. People have suggested to change MD’s aptitudes and such around to make them sufficiently different from HO and Mi to justify their existence. But because they were so similar to HO and Mi, doing this would require making them into what would basically be a completely new species – so why should it be called mountain dwarf?
129. Comment by Lyulf
12/Nov/2011 at 01:57
Minotaurs should never have been similar to dwarves to begin with, IMHO. Dwarves using heavy armour makes sense (especially as they have less bulk to cover and thus armouring the whole body in plate would be practical even in time periods where enough steel to armour a human to a similar lever would be prohibitively expensive. The cost of steel was a major historical obstacle to plate-bedecked armies, but being a dwarf means cutting that cost by ~2/5ths), but a minotaur cannot put on any torso armour that another creature would need to pull over their head (because horns). This limits the demibovine warrior to armour that toggles up at the front, which is rare, because the line along which it toggles may as well be a giant neon sign saying “stab here to bypass armour” (while there were types of armour that toggled up more often than not, such as many gambesons and all jacks-of-plates*, they were often worn in conjunction with armour that lacked this weakness, gambesons typically being worn under chain or plate. as neither armour exists at present in crawl**, minotaurs would reasonably have an armour selection of either cloth or nudity). Thus, having minotaurs supplant dwarves as the heavy armour race is probably a bad idea, considering their biological inability to wear typical armour. Thus, in order to differentiate the races I feel we should focus on changing minotuars to focus on the martial abilities they actually have. Horns, hooves and, given the original Minotaur’s appetite for the raw flesh of still-struggling human sacrifices, probably some fairly vicious teeth would be a good start, all of which play off unarmed combat. While the traditional association between minotaurs and axes is the result of misconceptions and blurring of history with myth (double-bladed axes were used in historical Minos for ritual animal sacrifices, and were later incorporated into generic D&D-esque portrayals of minotaurs despite not being present in the original myth) I feel that the strong association between the two is possibly enough reason to let them keep their axe specialties. On top of this, their association with barbarism and dishonourable combat (the original Minotaur ambushed defenceless opponents in the dark and gruesomely cannabalised them, dying when a would be sacrifice was able to fight it on equal terms) suggest the race should be directed towards Trog worship and all that it entails, and perhaps barred from serving the good gods and/or the honourable warrior god Okawuru. I also personally feel Hill Orcs should be angled more towards polearm use than axe use. Spears in particular feel orcish to me somehow.
* A jack of plates is esentially a padded leather or canvas coat sewn around the better part of a suit of plate armour, being designed primarily around protecting the arms and torso from arrows.
** It could be argued that some of the leather armours found in the dungeon are gambesons, though spritework indicates otherwise.
130. Comment by blueDave
12/Nov/2011 at 08:35
What bothers me the most about changes of this type is that it’s relatively a waste of developers time. Why spend precious developer hours taking something out and balancing what was left to cover the loss, when it could instead be spent on new features, content, and bug fixes?
The other thing is, never! Never!! NEVER!!! take away a feature that a lot of people like. Not everyone plays the game the way you envision it. So what, there’s a Tolkienesque race in the game? So what if there are a few races which are very similar? Similar aptitudes aren’t the only factors — as many others have said, just being able to recognize a character and predict intuitively what it’s strengths and weaknesses should be is golden for a newcomer. And if a lot of people play a combination in a lot of games, it means they like it. For someone who struggles to reach Lvl 15, infinite replayability is finding a unique way to die every time. And those people who win 2/3 their games can always play with voluntary handicaps like choosing bad combinations or by just not picking up some items.
My suggestion would be the same as what several people have said before. Revert, and if you must do something to differentiate then tweak the similar races to make them different.
131. Comment by minmay
12/Nov/2011 at 18:23
Maybe I’m weird, but I generally prefer the removals to the additions. I’m very glad to be rid of maprot (well, for some reason this hasn’t been completely removed yet), Divinations, Alter Self, and crystal balls of fixation. Meanwhile, I couldn’t care less about sky beasts, porcupines, and felids, and I actively dislike feature mimics, cloud traps, and turtles/snails hiding in shells.
132. Comment by Blade
12/Nov/2011 at 20:45
Everybody keeps mentioning minotaurs, but HILL ORCS ARE ALMOST IDENTICAL TO MOUNTAIN DWARVES, WITH THE AWESOME ADDITION OF BEOGH. You want a heavy armour fighter with no restricted slots? Go Hill Orc. You want a heavy armour caster? Go Hill Orc. You want a buff, axe-wielding, whirlwind of devastation? Go Hill Orc. You can call him Dwarf and worship Oka if you so desire; your gameplay will not have to change a single bit.
I admit that having a nice, “default” melee race is comforting, and dwarves did that well, but having that default also discourages exploration. Very little was really lost in the way of flavour; Deep Dwarves fulfill the dwarfy role just fine, and Forge Dwarves sound incredibly cool. Nothing was lost in the way of gameplay; Hill Orcs and Minotaurs fill *every single role Mountain Dwarves played.* The only solid reason to keep Mountain Dwarves is tradition, and that is not good enough.
That is all.
133. Comment by strangerc
13/Nov/2011 at 00:06
Just don’t make up what other people enjoy.
“Go play race X if you want palystyle X”
“MD is not interesting, similar to ”
“it entangles new player to an easy race”
” fits the armored fighter role well”
I just can’t believe such a terrible, weak, subjective statement comes out from devs of the game.
And, what makes this issue worse most is the dev’s attitude towards community.
It seems they consider any objection against the matter as pointless flaming or insult, but don’t you understand that it’s your side that started the flaming by offending many people, that was just silently enjoying the game, for “playing boring race I don’t like, which deserves removal”?
Yeah non of you exactly said such, but not using explicit words does not make it a reasonable and sane claim when the outcome / determination process is not reasonable one at all.
Why you just can’t leave them if only handful of people don’t like it?
Why couldn’t you notice the community more eariler and have a poll about it?
Why we need to be forced to choose a race based on your feelings?
The list can go a lot more, and none of devs answers them in reasonabe way.
I am very saddened to see such negative way of communication is initiated from the devs of this wonderful game.
134. Comment by jackalKnight
13/Nov/2011 at 07:15
HI aren’t identical to MD. MD had both Fire and Earth, all HI get for casting is a crappy +1 Fire. All DD are are modded Gnomes that are terrible at most MD roles. And this basically amounts to huge nerf on Dwarf armor, just as a Dwarf vault was implemented.
135. Comment by megane
13/Nov/2011 at 08:14
Calling the whole “Forge Dwarf” thing constructive criticism is very telling to me.
All he did was take Mountain Dwarves and rename them, and tweak them a little bit to make them different. This is what -everyone- was saying was needed to be done.
Perhaps there is some illusion that Forge Dwarves aren’t a tolkien thing. But ultimately that seems to be what it comes down to, if you rename the race it can stay in crawl.
136. Comment by evktalo
13/Nov/2011 at 12:25
megane, I think that is very disrespectful to the effort involved, especially as the effort comes from outside the development team. FD comes with analysis of the available “dwarfy” niches in the game after MD/Mi/HO changes, playtesting and iterations (well communicated in the tavern and wiki), and a completely new ability for the species. Not to mention the person had no previous coding experience. That effort has the “stone soup” spirit. I can’t guarantee FD will get in (it might turn out they don’t bring enough to the game), but they are getting a branch for testing on CDO.
I can’t speak for File200 but I would also hazard a guess that the sensible part of the discussion (offering well-though out ideas for MD differentation) has been useful for FD.
–Eino
137. Comment by minmay
13/Nov/2011 at 16:05
jackalKnight: Huh? As far as I can tell, DD are better at every single background than MD except for berserker and abyssal knight, and even those are debatable.
138. Comment by megane
13/Nov/2011 at 17:41
No disrespect is intended and I doubt any is taken. It doesn’t take a genius to come up with those tweaks. Dude is just trying to work around the stubbornness of ‘No Mountain Dwarves!’. He’s put some effort into it, which is both ballsy and clever, because it’s still just a dwarf, and because he realized if he just changed the name it could go through. Respect for that.
139. Comment by jackalKnight
13/Nov/2011 at 22:13
DD are not “better at every single background”. Melee DD is a terrible idea, and lots of people liked MD for Fighter. Virtually nobody will go DD Fighter.
140. Comment by minmay
14/Nov/2011 at 02:58
…Are you sure you aren’t confusing DD with Gn? DDFi (also, literally any other DD) is effectively invincible in the early game, on account of starting with a wand of healing. By the time it runs out of charges, you’ve already taken Makhleb or Kiku at the Temple, which turns the species’ only disadvantage into an inconvenience. Meanwhile, you have excellent aptitudes and HP, as well as taking 2-5 less damage from literally every attack.
MDFi dies to orc wizards, centaurs, and kobolds with branded weapons. DDFi uses one or two wand charges instead.
141. Comment by themutesock
14/Nov/2011 at 03:22
Good Evening. I just want to state that I used to really enjoy this game. I liked playing, and I still do it casually. In fact I still pick up version around 0.4-0.6 once in a while. I am not hard core, and to be honest, I have never been particularly good at this game. I have only ever gotten a few runes, and I have only been down to zot once or twice. I love the fact you only have one life, and I like how difficult the game is.
I just started to get the impression that anytime something became subjectively unbalanced, the devs would take it out. Whether it was fun or not. I mean, every time I come to check on the status of the game, the Devs are removing something, or nerfing something, etc. I understand that there is a vision to this game. I just that vision seems to be in the direction of very hard core, and based on a lot of meta information. It would be interesting to see the diffences in perception of a race based on dozens of games, and no access to the source code. I would say even in the early versions of the game, there were no trivial games. The only people who thought that a character class combination was trivial was because they already had so much meta information about the game, they could play exceptionally well. They knew what monsters were to be found, and how to fight them. In addition, why not have some race class combinations that are easier? I mean the MDBe is one of the first combos I could get down to any levels with. I learned about the game this way. The removal of the MD makes me sad. Like somehow an entire race of people have been wiped from the face of this world. It is an act of fictional genocide. All the heroes whose bones litter the depths of those crawls will never be remembered by their people in song, cause their people are gone. No more heroes from the halls of the mountain king will seek the orb of zot.
Can I ask honestly, why? I understand that it is your game, and a great game it has been. Well designed, well thought out, and much dedication have gone into it. The execution is very good. I understand that some decisions will go against the community, and some of the new ideas going in have been very good. I just don’t understand why you constantly have to remove, or nerf to add new things. What’s wrong with there being an easier race to play? What’s wrong with leaving in a race just cause it conjures up good images of your character, and people relate to that? Maybe all the races should just be called Race [A-F] and you can assign numbers appropriately? Part of the fun of the game is the perceived image of the character, and part of that is the race. The differences in the dungeons really express this perception of the story. They create a sense of immersion into the game. Otherwise everything could look the same and just have different stats. The race chosen is not just for stats, but partially for the perception of that character. Without those perceptions in many senses you lose a valuable element of immersion for the game.
In my opinion, fundamentally, playing a game is about fun. I like well thought out games, I like difficult games, and I think this is a wonderful example of that. I like games that require me to think, and learn. I just have lost any interest cause if I enjoy something about the game, the next time I check it out, it gets removed, or nerfed, in the name of “balance”, or “differentiation”. I mean is it too much to ask that a branch of the game get created where you don’t nerf, or remove anything? Just add the new content. I understand that it will be more complicated than that, like the school of Divination becoming a god, but bascially that is what I want.
I mean honestly, if people just want to play dwarves, does it hurt anything to leave them in? I mean if you don’t want to use the iconic fantasy races, feel free to completely remove all the races. Then just allow people to generate a character with the stats they want to play using some sort of point system, or some other thing. That would allow for the most differentiation and specification. It would allow for the largest range of playing styles. Otherwise seek input on how to differentiate the race instead of removing it. Surely there are other ways a race can be differentiated if it feels the same to the devs. I mean it isn’t the same in perception. A dwarf is not a minotaur regardless if their stats are exacly the same, their height is not. Plus the whole horns thing is a dead giveaway A fact that was probably very important when the first fork of the game was release.
In conclusion, I want to say thank you for creating this game by forking it from the original dungeon crawl. Thank you for keeping it alive. Thank you for managing lots of new content, new versions, and a tough community. Thank you for seeking input from the community on what to implement. Please just try to remember that there are things about the game that people like, and some of us are playing because we think the game is fun. We are playing because we enjoy the concept, and perception. We are playing because there are hundreds of hilarious ways to die. Not because we can’t tell the differnce between a dwarf and a minotaur. Not because we think the game is too easy. (Please raise your hand if you think the game is too easy…) Not because we think that every class needs to be totally differentiated, and every race class needs to be the same level of “difficult”.
Just my two cents.
-themutesock
142. Comment by megane
14/Nov/2011 at 03:29
DD trivializes a very large part of the game. You’ve got it right, any time you run into anything dangerous at all, you’ve got tons of hp, great damage shaving, and wand of healing on demand. It’s a no brainer – do I die, or do I use the wand. So I don’t play DD much, since for the beginning of the game it’s not much different from being on wizard mode. It’s about more than just being a good race.
143. Comment by Bhaak
14/Nov/2011 at 10:55
You should look at the bright side. The dwarven population has a chance to increase again, now that no longer an uncountable number of dwarves will be dying an untimely death on the dangerous quest to the Orb of Zot.
144. Comment by dpeg
14/Nov/2011 at 11:14
mutesock: I think I can explain why. At the core, a project like this (free, open content, no money involved) is about endless addition of new content: There are no deadlines, no responsiblities, so content tends to get more and more.
We deliberately try to fight this. The major reason is that more content does not mean more fun or better game. (Both of these are subjective notions, I’ll get to that in a moment.)
1. More content tends to lead to longer games. Crawl already is very long, a bit too long in some developers’ opinion even. This is why new branches aren’t just added, but chosen to (randomly) replace other branches.
2. New content has a tendency to make old content less relevant. This is often called the “power spiral”. We are very much aware and afraid of this effect. (It applies to all kind of games, including collectible card games, board games etc.) This is one reason for the permanent nerfing. At any given time, there will be features that are best or worst for any given task (like “killing with fire”). If one such feature is so strong/weak as to always/never be used, we have to react. We like to react a bit earlier than that, too.
3. A rich game like Crawl inevitably has fake choices, that is content under different labels, which in the end turns out to be (too) similar. New content tends to aggravate to this problem.
Because of all these, we generally think like this: whenever we’re evaluating content, we ask (i) Is it good to have in the game? If not, would we’d be better off removing it? (ii) Is it too strong? Will a nerf help, or do we have to remove? (iii) Will new content hurt what’s already there?
We are pretty strict about this, but in my opinion, that’s the only way for longterm appeal. You should note that Crawl has gained heaps of new content over the years: branches (including portal vaults — which make the game longer but allow for unique flavour and threats, and we *love* to add stuff; a random single level vault is the smallest unit by which to expand the game world), monsters, species, backgrounds, gods, spells, items, uniques, the whole package. Not all new stuff will please everyone; some removed old stuff will hurt many (like the MD removal obviously does).
I think I have explained the advantages of our strategy (and en passant why having an “add only branch” won’t really fly — apart from the fact that is would be a lot of work to maintain). What are the drawbacks?
1. Moving goalposts. The game is always in a flux. If you’ve grown used to a particularly strong feature (e.g. god or spell), chances are it gets nerfed sooner or later, or even removed. This can be discomforting. Is it really still the game you used to play back in the day?
2. Flavour. Since balance takes precedence over everything else, flavour is thrown overboard at times. This hurts; typical examples are how Nemelex has the “portable altar” or how berserkers lost their spears. MD removal does not really fit (it was not removed for balance concerns); see below.
3. Old vs new. We’re only human, so it is much more tempting to remove old content rather than new one. (This does not apply to nerfs: we nerf anything that is deemed too strong.) Since older content is more familiar among players, this is a potential source of conflict right there. On the other hand, I believe that the standards of design have risen (some old branches, species or gods would never be accepted if proposed today), so there is some advantage to the system.
4. Us vs them. Very often, it comes down to an executive decision. So we think the overlap between two features is too big and one has to go. The matter is discussed in the devteam and that’s it. We don’t think about popularity at this point but only what seems more fun to ourselves. (The hope being that fun for us will also mean fun to some players.) If we manage to hit a sensitive spot with players, we get an outcry. (MD removal is not the first one. Others were: megabats (we gave in needlessly, in my opinion), food reform (there were serious flaws and we came up with something better, which however may have never come about without the original reform), randomised energy (got tweaked but not removed). I would like to write what “community participation” means, but this text is too long already.
Finally, some words on what I consider to be misconceptions.
1. The game gets harder and harder. Or: Developers only care about the best players, i.e. design for themselves.
These are just not true. While Crawl always had a reputation of being fiendlishly difficult and we enjoy that, it really was a lot harder in older versions. Two examples: In 4b26, anything could be spawned in the starting room. In 0.9, every character got +3 HP. It is easy to miss the buffs among the nerfs/removals that get all the attention. What is true is that broken features get removed — but this hurts spoiled players much more than anyone else. (The bit about the meta information, i.e. spoilers, I cannot comprehend. We are very much aware of spoiler information and try to reduce it. A spoiled player always has a huge advantage over a naive player, but the game is not designed for source divers. Also, we did not remove MD because it was too easy. As stated upthread, Mi is just as easy. It was only about (lack of) differentation.)
2. Instead of removing, why don’t they just make it interesting?
Yes, that is always an option. But it also requires a lot of work. Someone has to come up with ideas, they have to be assessed and discussed and finally implemented, tested and tweaked. The way from a player saying “they should simply do *this*” to the released version is much longer than people expect. Often, we prefer to remove instead. MD is an example: ignoring the name/flavour side for a moment, once we agreed that certain species were lacking differentiation, we did discuss tweaks. None of them seemed good or easy enough (small size was even tried out), so we went with removal. Players have all kinds of ideas; one player made a patch which may turn into a new, official species at some point. (And even so, the Forge Dwarves still have to go some distance, if I understand my fellow developers correctly.)
3. They are getting their flavour all wrong. (Aka: approach to Tolkien/D&D/whatever)
To a certain, small extent, designing a game is like art. We would like to express ourselves. Is it more fun to follow large footprints or to discover something yourself? The question is not rhetorical and you may discover that being a developer or being a player makes a difference in the answer. But even if you’re a fan of a kind of flavour we don’t like so much (e.g. Tolkien dwarves), you may appreciate that Crawl’s uniques, branches and gods are beginning to get a life of their own. (Uniques used to be very bland: now they often stand out, not just as threats rather than re-named standard monsters, but also in flavour. Branches like Slime, Orc or the Abyss have become a lot more interesting over the years, in my opinion; and again not just in gameplay but also in their own lore. Gods are supposed to be less like slot machines and more like divine beings. It is an awfully long process, but we enjoy it.) Ultimately, flavour decisions are even more subjective than “what is fun” (in comparison, “what is balanced” is outright objective a question). There were reasons to keep Mi over MD and you are fully entitled to disliking all the reasons. But if you were in the driver’s seat, would you take the option *you* like less? (This is one of the instances where the fact that no copies are sold is crucial. In a commercial game, you’d always put your vision behind what the market demands. In a project like this, not necessarily so.)
In the end, everyone should be aware that it’s only a game. There are more important things in life. If you cannot relate anymore, take a break. If you decide to have a look after a year or five, you can be sure that there will be some version under development, with all kinds of new features to play with.
145. Comment by Sealer
14/Nov/2011 at 20:31
Sooo… just making sure I got it right… people hate this change because they want to roleplay in crawl? After the 1000th death when the welcoming screen says ‘What name will you choose today’ people want to pop in Gimli, imagine the small sturdy axe wielder and roll another MDFi?
2 other things that concerned me are first – what is so hard or bad about picking an old version of crawl to play if you dislike the changes? I like most of the changes (maybe dislike the cloud traps a bit), but if I didn’t, instead of a big bad ‘Fuck you’ posted here, I would just enjoy a version of crawl that I liked more.
Second: What is so emotional about playing the dwarf in crawl instead of in any other game? It feels like most people posting the negative comments played crawl BECAUSE IT HAS DWARVES and now that it doesn’t they will stop!
This is a single player game, you can’t really say this was a ‘nerf’ to something because you are not pitted against each other, furthermore there are multiple versions of the game available for download – and since this game is a single player game you’re actually still allowed to play dwarves.
Don’t get me wrong, I actually dislike felids and think that octopodes are the worst idea ever, but this change striked me as fairly reasonable. I wouldn’t have thought anyone cared about this species anyway ;).
146. Comment by megane
16/Nov/2011 at 04:41
1. Online Servers are kept up to date.
2. You forego other changes, almost all of which are good changes.
3. Besides ‘good’ changes, change itself can keep things from being stale.
4. Personally, any avoiding of playing crawl would be due to distaste for this whole process. I haven’t played a mountain dwarf in at least 2 years, but it makes me feel like doing something else with my time.
147. Comment by Sealer
17/Nov/2011 at 15:53
1. +2. + 3. I feel are pretty much the same. Removing MD is a change as well, and if I can accept it effortlessly I have troubles understanding other people who don’t even care about the race feel differently. It is a change just as much as removing hill dwarves or grey elves and other races was a change. I don’t feel any more robbed than when they removed gnomes or the other races (on the other hand I love the flavour of deep dwarves which came in to replace gnomes somehow).
4. I guess your point with saying you haven’t played mountain dwarves in at least 2 years is that it isn’t what makes you not play the game/despise the change.
Some reasons provided here to why people hate the change are downright ridiculous (fx. roleplaying) and all the dev bashing is just distasteful.
148. Comment by Waltorious
21/Nov/2011 at 23:10
First, let me say that I completely understand the developers’ reasoning for this change. But, like everyone else, I feel it is the wrong fix. I think that the game already heavily favors non-melee characters and that removing one of the melee-focused races won’t help. Instead I’d like to see a combination of greater differentiation of the melee-focused races with more depth and options in melee combat. Others have mentioned Brogue; it has polearms that have a longer reach and can hit two enemies in a line, axes that can hit all adjacent enemies, etc.
How about being able to perform a shield bash? Or sword users being able to parry? What about dual-wielding certain weapons? Optional special moves that are race-dependent and / or dependent on skill level with certain weapons?
I think changes like that would allow for greater racial diversity for melee-focused races. One race could focus on shields, other races could have strong biases towards certain weapon types which come with their own special combat abilities, etc. I hope that the developers are planning on adding some depth to melee combat in this way in the future.
Before I forget, I want to say that I love Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup and I have agreed with most of the changes the devs have made (I’ve been playing since v0.6). I just don’t want to see melee characters fall by the wayside.
I was also really hoping to get my first win with my Mountain Dwarf FIghter newbie build, so I may stick with v0.91 for a little longer. Last time I came REALLY close!
149. Comment by evktalo
25/Nov/2011 at 15:44
Waltorious, such weapon moves and perks are discussed and planned for future inclusion. All polearms actually have “natural” reaching in 0.10, and there’s still hope for (unarmed) construction for Nagas and Octopodes before the release.
–Eino